Dr. Alexander Auzan, well-known Russian economist, Dean of the Faculty of Economics at Moscow State University in his recent interview to "Vedomosti" newspaper told about his conversation with Daron Acemoglu. He has mentioned that he agrees with Acemoglu's statement that economic development is conditioned by the quality and quality of institutions. "But the subject of our dispute was the following: from which to start, which is the point where the movement is launched by another orbit,"- told Auzan. Acemoglu sees the solution in politics: that is, to go on the path of democratization. But, Auzan considers that the right point is not in politics.

"Because it is calculated, if you go to democratization, then with poor economic institutions, non-operating courts and in the absence of rule of law, you will get worse, "- marked Auzan.

And on the other hand, is it possible to have working institutes and an effective judicial system without democracy?

With this very question we began our interview with Alexander Auzan.

- Of course, democracy (i.e. the functioning of mature political institutions) and economic development are interconnected. But this is not a simple connection, there are certain sequences. The works of Russian (V. Polterovich, V. Popov) and western (T. Person, G. Tebellini) economists show that democratization can provide positive economic effects only with the availability of certain institutions. This refers to, in particular, a competent bureaucratic and working judicial system. In the absence of these institutions, democratization has negative economic implications. That's why the question is how to build a sequence in the development of political and economic institutions. It is necessary to start with a competent bureaucracy and working judicial system then proceed to democratization and only then go to the construction of more sophisticated institutions.

– The Armenian government targets to achieve an annual average of 5% real economic growth for the upcoming years. You said for Russia that the desired growth rates were slightly higher than zero, to a maximum of 2%. Moreover, you say you feel the stench of stagnation. How reasonable is our optimism, taking into account the deep dependence of Armenia on the economy of Russia? And if there is a weak economic growth in Russia, is it possible to have high economic growth in Armenia and in other EAEU countries?

– The issues relating to economic growth rates are not so clear. Yes, with current dynamics, Russia will most likely have 2% economic growth. But for this reason, new strategies are being developed so that we can overcome this trend and get to the higher rate of growth. This refers in particular to the project, which is being developed by the Center for Strategic Studies under the leadership of Kudrin. On the one hand, the deviation from economic growth may be greater than it is supposed to be in accordance with the current forecast. On the other hand, really, other EAEU member countries can show high growth rates even in the case of Russian economy restrictions. Because, first of all, this pace reflects growth as compared to a certain base, and in this sense, the Armenian economy can and should grow faster than the more sophisticated and developed economies. And secondly, there is competition within the Eurasian Economic Union, and those who compete successfully can grow faster than others. So, yes, the 5% growth of Armenia's economy is theoretically possible.

– How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the EAEU from the purely economic point of view? Up today in Armenia has been arguing over the question what has given us membership in that structure. In your opinion, what is the benefit of Member States and, in particular of Armenia, having no common border with other EAEU countries, can get economic benefits?

– With regard to the effectiveness of the EAEU, it is a rather subtle and complicated issue. However, I am somewhat convinced that the structure has a future for a simple reason. There are stages of unification and "escape" in the world. In my opinion, we are living in the era of globalization outflow, when regional alliances are formed everywhere. It will be difficult for both Armenia and Russia to survive outside those alliances.

 Yes, the current scheme of the EAEU, to put it mildly, is not very effective. But getting out of this integration would be bad too.

– Among the possible benefits of the EAEU membership is also noted the fact that Armenia can can play a role of a bridge between the countries of that structure (in particular, Russia) and third countries. How realistic is that?

– I do not quite understand how Armenia in economic terms can act as a bridge between the EAEU and other countries. But I guess that the basis of that idea can be the historical role of the Armenian Diaspora in the development of the global economy.

Yes, the Armenian Diaspora has undoubtedly proved its ability to mediate and establish contacts between different countries. And if the Diaspora with this ability will be involved in that positive process of the EAEU, it will be a truly new opportunity for the Union.

– What do you think; the single currency will be adopted in EAEU? To what extent is it appropriate (or is it necessary or not) and when it can happen?

– Even if a single currency is adopted in the EAEU, I do not think it will happen soon.

It requires such a level of mutual confidence and integration, the evident economic success of the union formation, which in my opinion we will not achieve in the coming decades. But in theory, I would not exclude the adoption of a single currency in this or that stage of economic integration.

– In the end, such a question, Karen Karapetyan, Prime Minister of Armenia has come to the state system from business sector as well as some of ministers appointed by him. In Armenia, many people believe that if these people were successful managers in the private sector, then they would also be effective at the state system.  Paul Krugman, for instance, believes that the country is not a company and a good businessman can fail in macroeconomic issues. What is your opinion?

– The experience through which a person comes to manage the economy of the country, or, more precisely, to develop an economic policy (because economic management literally has been implemented in the Soviet period, when the economy was state, decisions were taken centrally) it is important but not enough. People come from a variety of fields and each of them uniquely unprepared for it. Theoretician, who understands how the macroeconomics works at the national level, may not master organizational mechanisms. A politician, who knows how to come to an agreement with different forces, may not understand the macroeconomic formulas. A businessman who understands how to manage and achieve balance is doing it at the company level, not the country. So, in any case it requires talent, additional training and great efforts.